[Brave Ulysses]

Originally Posted by Frank777 Exactly. External GPUs are precisely what Thunderbolt 3 is for.

We're not talking about Thunderbolt 3 here.

[Eugene]

So is making an iMac without a CPU.

The Apple way is to keep the GPU inside the host device and also the wholistic approach of making sure each platform functions on its own. Apple doesn't want a situation where someone opens an app an iPad Pro only for it to display a dialog "Thunderbolt display required."

[Eugene]

Originally Posted by Brave Ulysses We're not talking about Thunderbolt 3 here.

We aren't? It's been shipping for half a year, just not in Apple products.

[Frank777]

Originally Posted by Brave Ulysses Because that is unApple.

Yeah, 'cause Apple would never make a small black box to connect to a display...

[kscherer]

Originally Posted by Eugene We aren't? It's been shipping for half a year, just not in Apple products.

We are talking about compatibility with all Thunderbolt devices, not just TB 3.

[Brave Ulysses]

Originally Posted by Eugene So is making an iMac without a CPU. The Apple way is to keep the GPU inside the host device and also the wholistic approach of making sure each platform functions on its own. Apple doesn't want a situation where someone opens an app an iPad Pro only for it to display a dialog "Thunderbolt display required."

Then they would handle that via minimum requirements in the app store the same way they currently handle basically everything.

i.e.: You can use a game controller with an Apple TV but Apple requires all Apple TV games to support it's shitty little remote by default. Which one provides a better experience?

We aren't? It's been shipping for half a year, just not in Apple products.

No... not sure if you are just trying to be annoying or intentionally ignoring the original basis for the discussion of an eGPU in the display.... backwards compatibility with most thunderbolt macs. Thunderbolt 3 wouldn't support 5K on its own anyway.

[Frank777]

Originally Posted by Brave Ulysses Thunderbolt 3 wouldn't support 5K on its own anyway.

As has been pointed out, Apple's been holding off on Thunderbolt 3 adoption for half a year now. Since TB was largely their idea, this is strange.

In the laptop thread, kscherer wondered why Apple might be holding off on introducing new laptops.

Maybe there's a link between the two. Is there any realistic prospect that Thunderbolt 3 could be upgraded with 5K support in the next few months?

[Frank777]

Hmmm. Embedded DisplayPort (eDP) version 1.4a has been developed by the Video Electronics Standard Association (VESA), with version 1.4b only recently published in October 2015; which won't enable adoption of eDP 1.4 until mid-2016.

[Eugene]

Thunderbolt can in fact work with a single 5K display via MST. The MST adapter can be built into the new display too. The average user wouldn't even notice.

This is how Dell's 5K display works and how 4K was initially supported. How is suggesting the use of cheaper, sensible technology over forced integration "being annoying?"

[kscherer]

That solution requires two cables, right? So how does that help 13" MacBook Pro and MacBook Air users?

[Eugene]

Originally Posted by kscherer That solution requires two cables, right? So how does that help 13" MacBook Pro and MacBook Air users?

No, it requires the use of two display streams on a single Thunderbolt port (or DisplayPort.) How else do you think it's possible to drive two 4K displays via one port?

I'm really confused at the fervor over this rumor considering the capabilities of existing technology.

[Brave Ulysses]

Originally Posted by Frank777 As has been pointed out, Apple's been holding off on Thunderbolt 3 adoption for half a year now. Since TB was largely their idea, this is strange.

They haven't been holding off. Intel hasn't supported it.

[Eugene]

Also wrong...

[Brave Ulysses]

Originally Posted by Eugene Also wrong...

You're very wrong and have been consistently throughout this thread. Are you going to start crying about how this is just an iMac without a CPU again now?

boo hoo hoo.

[Eugene]

Was I wrong about Thunderbolt supporting 5K via MST? Was I wrong that a large monitor with a GPU, storage, all the standard I/O, etc. is basically a CPU-less iMac? That MST only requires one cable? That Thunderbolt 3 has been shipping since last year (and is currently available on many enthusiast motherboards from Asus, Gigabyte, ASRock, MSI as well as their laptops?)

This isn't even a good rumor. Why cling to it?

Daisy-chaining solves everything. Want to extend the graphics power of your iPad Pro? Then connect it to a MacBook Pro connected to a Thunderbolt display. Preposterous yeah? But so is using the current iPad Pro as a desktop replacement when you need to overpay for a boat anchor niche Thunderbolt display that you can't travel with. The iPad Pro device tier will be capable of driving a 5K display on its own in a couple years anyway.

[Brave Ulysses]

ok. You're wrong, but I'm over this. You really suck the life out of everything around here with your ego trips.

[Eugene]

I've stated nothing but factual, relevant information (besides the last prediction.)

Some random guy on Twitter starts a rumor about a product he thinks he wants, and it's supposed to be credible?

Also here's another fact about Apple's only 5K solution available now. It uses MST! All that custom TCON in the 5K iMac does is minimize desync between the two DisplayPort streams.

[Eugene]

An incomplete list of PCs with Thunderbolt 3

Example of a product on that list not labeled with Thunderbolt 3 support, but has it anyway:
Lenovo ThinkPad P50

Pretty much every major PC and mainboard brand has been shipping Thunderbolt 3 for months... except Apple! If you don't believe me, just visit the websites of Asus, Acer, Lenovo, HP, Dell, ASRock, Gigabyte, MSI, Razer, etc.

e: Yo, Intel isn't supporting Thunderbolt 3.

[Frank777]

Originally Posted by Brave Ulysses They haven't been holding off. Intel hasn't supported it.

That has never stopped Apple before. Just because it's not on Intel's chipset, doesn't mean Apple couldn't build it in.

[PB PM]

Say what? Apple has dallied many times because of Intel. Examples? USB3 anyone? Apple didn't get USB3.0 until Intel finally included it in the chipsets, which is why the PC market had it for several years before Apple.

[Frank777]

Originally Posted by PB PM Say what? Apple has dallied many times because of Intel. Examples? USB3 anyone? Apple didn't get USB3.0 until Intel finally included it in the chipsets, which is why the PC market had it for several years before Apple.

True. But if Apple was really intent on having TB3, Intel's delays would not have stopped it.
As has been mentioned, a host of PC companies have included TB3 in their 2016 designs already.

The delay in us getting TB3 looks more like Cook's penny-pinching calculations winning out over Apple Engineering.
Which is probably why you shouldn't put a numbers and operations guy in the CEO position of a tech company.

If Dell could build in TB3 to their laptops, how hard could it be?

[Frank777]

Originally Posted by PB PM Say what? Apple has dallied many times because of Intel. Examples? USB3 anyone? Apple didn't get USB3.0 until Intel finally included it in the chipsets, which is why the PC market had it for several years before Apple.

Further to this, Apple had an agenda in keeping USB3 on the back burner. It was going to kill off Firewire and Thunderbolt wasn't yet ready.

[PB PM]

That's the story people give, but I doubt it has anything to do with it. Firewire was effectively dead long before Apple dropped it from hardware and everyone knew from the get go that Thunderbolt was not a USB3 competitor, due to the price of the setup and early products. The reason is simple, Apple wanted to use the Intel chipset, which only had USB2, rather than a third party one. Why? Intel gave them deals for using all Intel chipsets.

[Frank777]

Originally Posted by PB PM The reason is simple, Apple wanted to use the Intel chipset, which only had USB2, rather than a third party one. Why? Intel gave them deals for using all Intel chipsets.

Which again, is why you don't want a bean counter in absolute control of product development.

[Eugene]

Apple didn't implement USB 3.0 right away for a host of reasons. Thunderbolt was precisely one of those reasons. Intel was also slow to implement USB 3.0 natively around the time Sandy Bridge came out. Whereas the PCH (Cougar Point) associated with Sandy Bridge supported something like 14 USB 2.0 channels, it did not support USB 3.0. Mainboard manufacturers had to use NEC or ASMedia USB 3.0 controllers. When Ivy Bridge came out Intel finally had support for 4 USB 3.0 channels built into the PCH.

Thunderbolt hasn't quite followed the same path. There have never been third-party Thunderbolt controllers. It has never been integrated into a PCH. My best guess is that Apple's update cycle has aligned poorly with the introduction of the technology. Only the low-end MacBook has gotten the Skylake treatment. The next most recently updated line is the iMac...240 days ago, right around the time the first Thunderbolt 3 enabled PCs started shipping.

[Frank777]

Originally Posted by Eugene There have never been third-party Thunderbolt controllers. It has never been integrated into a PCH.

I know nothing about designing computer hardware interfaces. If Thunderbolt 3 isn't supported by Intel and has no third-party support, how, pray tell have PC manufacturers including it in their new products for months?

[Eugene]

It is supported by Intel. Intel invented the damn thing. They make discrete controllers for Thunderbolt, typically handling two ports per chip.

Controller info.

[Brave Ulysses]

Originally Posted by Eugene An incomplete list of PCs with Thunderbolt 3 Example of a product on that list not labeled with Thunderbolt 3 support, but has it anyway: Lenovo ThinkPad P50 Pretty much every major PC and mainboard brand has been shipping Thunderbolt 3 for months... except Apple! If you don't believe me, just visit the websites of Asus, Acer, Lenovo, HP, Dell, ASRock, Gigabyte, MSI, Razer, etc. e: Yo, Intel isn't supporting Thunderbolt 3.

Never once said that Thunderbolt 3 was not present in other manufacturer's computers. Where did I say that? And how is that relevant?

[Eugene]

Thunderbolt is literally the one I/O to rule them all and Intel went through a lot of trouble steering USB (another of their inventions) into a convergent path.

In what way is Intel not supporting it? And if that is true, why should we be excited about rumors revolving around unsupported tech?

[Eugene]

Originally Posted by alcimedes External GPU's running over TB 2 are over 90% as effective as inline PCIe cards, last I'd looked. I've been debating an external GPU setup I could use with both my laptop and desktops. This is a wonderful opportunity for Apple to enter the external GPU market, but Apple has always been strangely absent in pushing the boundaries of the GPU aspect of computing, I wouldn't expect them to start now.

Reading some scrollback, the performance delta with Thunderbolt 2 and external GPUs can be attributed almost entirely to the limited PCIe bandwidth and not electrical signaling/latency. I see about 95% of max performance with an older Radeon 7970 on PCIe 2.0 x8, which is has the same bandwidth as PCIe 3.0 x4

With Thunderbolt 3 a very high-end GPU Like a GTX 1080 might see 80-85% of max performance at PCIe 3.0 x4 speeds. Then again, the GTX 1080 is actually not Nvidia's flagship... As GPUs have jumped from 28nm to 14-16nm overnight, we are going to see some huge performance gains from Nvidia's GP100 and AMD's Vega microarchitectures. Not that it matters, those GPUs are beastly.